31 People vs. Valencia
31 People vs. Valencia
31 People vs. Valencia
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
89
the nearest police station and proceeded against in accordance with Rule
112, Section 7. Under said Section 7, Rule 112, the prosecuting officer can
file the Information in court without a preliminary investigation, which was
done in the accused-appellant’s case. Since the records do not show whether
the accused-appellant asked for a preliminary investigation after the case
had been filed in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant signified his
readiness to be arraigned, the Court can only conclude that he waived his
right to have a preliminary investigation, when he did, in fact, pleaded “Not
Guilty” upon his arraignment.
NOCON, J.:
_________________
90
follows:
_________________
2 Rolo, pp.47-48.
91
Samuel, Jr., aged five and three, respectively, and her mother, are residents
of 2008 F. Muñoz St., Paco, Manila. At about 9:00 p.m. of March 19, 1989,
as she was about to eat supper, she noticed appellant standing five steps
away from the open door of her house and holding a sumpak, a homemade
shotgun. Seized with fear, she closed the door. After a few moments, she
heard a burst of gunfire. This was followed by cries of pain from her
children inside the house. Seeing her children bloodied, she immediately
went outside and shouted for help. As she did so, she saw appellant running
away, carrying the sumpak. Two neighbors assisted Jimenez in bringing the
injured children to the Philippine General Hospital (tsn, pp. 2-5, 8, 17, Aug.
7, 1989).
“That same evening, Patrolman Renato Marquez, a homicide
investigator, interviewed Jimenez at the hospital about the shooting incident.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
Since she was still experiencing shock over the incident, Jimenez forgot to
mention the name of appellant as the one who shot her children (tsn, pp. 4,
14, Aug. 21, 1989).
“Acting on the report of a barangay tanod, Patrolmen Roberto Cajiles,
Romeo de la Peña and Carlos Castañeda, assigned at the Ong Detachment,
Police Station No. 5, conducted an investigation of the shooting incident in
the house of Jimenez. At the time, Jimenez and her injured children were
already in the hospital. Nevertheless, Pat. Cajiles was able to interview the
mother of Jimenez, the barangay captain, a certain Josie, and appellant’s
brother, Rolando, who all mentioned appellant as the gunwielder. Moreover,
the policemen discovered the presence of six pellet holes and one big hole
with the size of the circumference of a shotgun bullet on the door of the
house of Jimenez. Three pellets were also found at the crime scene (tsn. pp.
3-6; 9, 10, Sept. 4, 1989).
“Early next morning, the three policemen were led by Rolando Valencia
to the residence of Sonia Castillo, his aunt, where he believed appellant was
sleeping. The police apprehended appellant there and took him to the Ong
Detachment for initial investigation (tsn, pp. 7, 11-13, Sept. 4, 1989). He
was indorsed to the police headquarters for further investigation in the
evening of March 22, 1989 (tsn. p. 7, Aug. 21, 1989). At 12:20 a.m. of the
following day, one of the injured children, Annabelle, died as a result of the
gunshot wounds she suffered (Exh. H). The other child, Samuel Jr., who was
shot in the right forearm, was discharged from the hospital one week after
the incident, but needed two (2) more weeks for healing (tsn. p. 3, Aug. 21,
1989).
“On March 26, 1989, Arlyn Jimenez executed a sworn statement (Exh.
B) wherein she identified appellant as the culprit. On March 30, 1989, a
certain Ramon Bacnotan executed a sworn statement (Exh. J)
92
and turned over to the police the sumpak 3 (Exh. A) allegedly used by
appellant in the shooting of the two children.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
__________________
93
“1. Criminal Case No. 89-72061—for the crime of HOMICIDE (with the
use of unlicensed firearm), alleged to have been committed as follows:
‘That on or about March 19, 1989, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, with the use of an unlicensed firearm (sumpak), did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, attack, assault
and use personal violence upon one ANNABELLE JIMENEZ Y
BARREDO by then and there shooting the latter with an unlicensed firearm
(sumpak) hitting her at the back and at the right buttock, thereby inflicting
upon said Annabelle Jimenez y Barredo gunshot wounds which were the
direct and immediate cause of her death.
‘Contrary to law.’
and in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use
personal violence upon one SAMUEL JIMENEZ, JR. Y BARREDO, by
then and there shooting the latter with an unlicensed firearm (sumpak)
hitting him at the right forearm, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound
which is necessarily fatal, thus performing all the acts of execution which
should have produced the crime of homicide, as a consequence, but
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will,
that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Samuel
Jimenez, Jr. y Barredo5 which saved his life.
“Contrary to law.”
_______________
94
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
____________
95
Jimenez’ shanty showing that the pellets were fired through said
plywood wall and not through the door.
The alleged incredibility and flip-flopping testimonies do not
exist and could be explained.
In this connection, it is worthwhile mentioning the reason why at
first no eyewitnesses volunteered to testify in this case and for which
the court may take judicial notice of. The incident occurred in Anak
Bayan, Paco, Manila, a place notorious for its high incidence of
criminality even before World War II. With the increase in its
population of urban poor after the war and the formation of teenage
gangs, one resided in Anak Bayan either out of sheer desperation or
because his forefathers lived there and out of necessity one could not
help but live with them and take his chances with the environment.
One always lives in constant fear of being killed or maimed or
forced to take drugs from the pushers that hang around the place.
Ramon Bacnotan, (the person who found 14
the sumpak and gave it to
the police) in his statement to the police, tells Us why this is so:
_________________
96
siya sa gamot.”
(Italics supplied.)
Arlyn B. Jimenez testified that as she and her son, Samuel were
about to eat, she saw 15
“Ponga” holding a sumpak a few feet away
from16her open door. Seized with fear, she immediately closed the 17
door because whenever she sees a sumpak she feels afraid.
Momentarily thereafter, a shot was fired through her door, hitting
her children. With her two children in serious condition Arlyn
rushed them to the Philippine General Hospital, and in her state of
hysteria and shock, Arlyn was in 18no position to tell the police
investigator who shot her children, nor recall whether a rumble
preceded the shooting or not. All that she could tell the police at that
point in time was that the sumpak pellets passed through her shanty
door, which she had just closed. Arlyn’s testimony should be
considered in the light of the fact that there is no standard of 19
behavior when one is confronted with a shocking incident,
especially so when the person whose testimony is elicited is part of
that shocking incident.
Contrary to accused-appellant’s assertions, the photograph
presented in evidence indeed shows that the bullet holes were on the
door and not on the wall of the shanty. This was corroborated by Pat.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
Cajiles who20
testified that the shanty door “happen to have gunshot
damages.”
The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses cited by accused-appellant have not been shown to be
deliberately made to distort the truth and cannot, therefore, be
regarded as dissolving and destroying the probative value of the
witnesses’ testimonies on the identity of the suspect, the 21presence of
the rumble and the entry point of the “sumpak” pellets. Settled is
the rule that the findings of the trial court on
_______________
15 Ibid, p. 3.
16 Ibid, p. 4.
17 TSN, August 7, 1989, p. 17.
18 TSN, August 21, 1989, p. 5.
19 People vs. Catubig, 205 SCRA 643.
20 TSN, September 4, 1989, p. 4, p. 10.
21 Angelo vs. CA, G.R. No. 88392, June 26, 1992.
97
II
The accused-appellant decries the fact that he was denied the right of
preliminary investigation. This is not true.
A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant23 pursuant to
paragraph 1(b), Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court should be
delivered to the nearest police station 24
and proceeded against in
accordance
25
with Rule 112, Section 7. Under said Section 7, Rule
112, the prosecuting officer can file the Infor-
_________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a
waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the
assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of his
choice. Notwithstanding such waiver, he
98
(1) While she, her mother and her son, Samuel Jimenez, Jr., were
taking supper in their shanty at around 8:30-9:00 o’clock in the
evening of March 19, 1989, she saw Ponga, who is accused
Alejandro Valencia, standing a few meters outside holding a
homemade shotgun, locally known as ‘sumpak’. Afraid of any
untoward incident or of their involvement thereof, she immediately
closed the door of their house.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
(2) Not long after she closed the door of their house, there
______________
may apply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been first
conducted, the accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the
information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his
favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule. (15a)”
26 Certification of ex-parte investigation by the Assistant City Prosecutor, Records, pp. 1-2.
27 Order of Trial Court, June 2, 1989; Records, p. 11.
28 People vs. Lazo, 198 SCRA 274.
29 People vs. Briones, 202 SCRA 708.
99
was a gun blast coming from in front of their hovel, from the
direction where she saw Ponga standing. That shot injured her two
children, Annabelle and Samuel, Jr., causing the death of the
former four days later and injuring the latter’s forearm causing his
hospitalization for one week and another 2 weeks for complete
recovery.
(3) Upon seeing her two children wounded, she opened the door of
their dwelling to ask for help. At that precise moment, she saw
accused Alejandro Valencia running away and carrying the same
homemade shotgun (sumpak).
(4) The several holes (6 of them) of the door (made of plywood) to
their house unmistakably show that they were produced by pellets
of a shotgun bullet and one bigger hole shows that it was made by a
shotgun bullet because of the size of its circumference. In fact, Pat.
Roberto Cajiles recovered 3 pellets at the door.
(5) A homemade shotgun (sumpak)—now Exhibit “A”) was retrieved
from a canal/ditch very near the hut of Arlyn Barredo-Jimenez by
Ramon Bacnotan and surrendered to Pat. Edgardo Paterno on
March 30, 1989.
(6) That there was a rumble involving 2 rival gangs immediately
preceding the shooting incident that night of March 19, 1989
participated in by accused Alejandro Valencia is admitted by the
defense in its offer of People’s Tonight issue of March 20, 1989
(Exhibit “1”).
100
31657 & 32264, January 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 242; People vs. Aposago, et
al., L-32477, October 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 574, and other numerous cases).
Thus, Arlyn Barredo-Jimenez testified that while they were taking their
supper that night of March 19, 1989, she happened to glance through the
open door of their hut and she saw the accused, outside, standing a few
meters away, holding a homemade shotgun (sumpak). Lest she may get
embroiled in any untoward incident, she hurriedly went to close the door.
She recognized that person standing outside due to the light in front of their
house and the fluorescent lamp at the back of their neighbor’s house, thus
illuminating the place where the person was standing. Soon after she closed
the door, there was a gun blast and then she heard the moanings and cries of
pain of her two children, Annabelle and Samuel, Jr. When she looked at
them, she saw them bloodied and writhing in pain. Immediately, she opened
the door of their hovel to ask for help. Once she opened the door, she saw
the accused, Alejandro Valencia, running away and carrying with his right
hand the homemade shotgun.
In addition, the telltale bullet marks of the door proved without doubt
that they were produced by a shotgun bullet and pellets thereof. Pat. Renato
Marquez testified that he saw those bullet and pellet holes at the door when
he went to investigate the place after he received a report of the incident
from Pat. Ramon Cajiles of the Ong Detachment. From his investigation,
only one suspect has been consistently mentioned and that is accused
Alejandro Valencia who is identified by those he investigated as Ponga.
All these circumstances are found by the Court to be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused, Alejandro Valencia, is
guilty thereof, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except that of his guilt. They constitute an unbroken chain which leads to a
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the defendant, Alejandro
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
Valencia, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the two crimes; a
chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other and
they certainly can not be overcome by the very inconcrete and doubtful
evidence submitted by him (Erlanger and Galinger, Inc. vs. Exconde, L-
4792 and L-4795, September 20, 1953) as will be pointed out later. Then,
too, the facts that no less than the accused’s brother, Ramon Valencia,
brought the policeman to their aunt’s house to arrest the herein accused is
another circumstance to show that, indeed, herein accused is guilty thereof.”
101
III
The fact that the case of illegal possession of the sumpak, Criminal
Case No. 89-72657 was dismissed upon motion of the prosecution is
irrelevant and immaterial as what is material is that Arlyn Jimenez
30
saw Ponga holding the sumpak shotgun before the shooting and
saw him again
31
holding the said weapon while running away after the
shooting. Said criminal case was dismissed because the trial court
applied Section 1, P.D. No. 1866 to accused-appellant’s case. Thus,
the trial court correctly ruled that:
“Finally, the accused did not adduce any evidence of whatever nature to
show that he has the authorization or permit to possess the homemade
shotgun (Exhibit “A”). As a matter of fact, there is no need to discuss
further this matter because such kind of firearm can not be
licensed/registered with the Firearms and Explosives Unit, PC, as it is a
homemade shotgun. The Court can take judicial notice that said firearm can
fire and cause injury even death, to a person. Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended, provides that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearms, the penalty of death shall
be imposed. Since death occurred as a consequence of the use of an
unlicensed firearm (homemade shotgun) in Criminal Case No. 89-72061,
the penalty so provided therein should be imposed.”
IV
_______________
102
——o0o——
______________
103
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
9/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165bdf43e1bfe763681003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15